You are on page 1of 1

MACALINTAL VS.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORALTRIBUNAL

FACTS:

 an undesignated petition1 filed by Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal (Atty. Macalintal), that questions
the constitution of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as an illegal and unauthorized
progeny of Section 4,2 Article VII of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.

Petitoner's contests that:


*Invoked Constitutional Provision (Rules 3 8 9 and 11)
allows the appointment of additional personnel
* In Buac vs. COmelec,contests involving Pres and V-Pres fall exercise of quasi-judicial power.
*designation of the Members of the Court as Chairman and Members thereof, contravenes
Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution, which prohibits the designation of Members of the
Supreme Court and of other courts established by law to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
 April 6, 2010, filed a Comment -OSG the petition filed by Atty. Macalintal is unspecified and
without statutory basis; "the liberal approach in its preparation x x x is a violation of the well
known rules of practice and pleading in this jurisdiction."

ISSUES:
I
WHETHER x x x PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE INSTANT PETITION.
II
WHETHER x x x THE CREATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR
BEING A VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 7, SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
III
WHETHER x x x THE DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT AS MEMBERS OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BEING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 12,
ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.6

Ruling:
1. Petitioner has simply alleged a generalized interest in the outcome of this case, and succeeds only in
muddling the issues. In this partalone, the petition can already be dismissed outright.
2. SC's method of deciding Pres and V-Pres election contests thru PET is derivative of the exercise
of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision. Thus, the subsequent directive
in the provision for the Supreme Court to "promulgate its rules for the purpose."
RA 1973 has not createdanew or separate court. It has merely Conferred upon the SC the functions of
PET
3. The traditional grantof Judicial power in Sec. 1 Art. 8 was expanded but it remained Absolute.
The setup embodied in the Consti and Statutes characterizes the RESOLUTION of ELectoral Contests as
essentially an exercise of JUDICIAL POWER. PET as intended by the Framers of the Consti is to be an
institution independent but NOT separate from the Judicial dept